I understand. I think HDR can be effective, if used wisely, but injudicious use of the technique as is most commonly seen, without consideration to effect or impact on the viewer, I agree, is somewhat distressing.
I'm reading the late[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Galen-Rowells-Inner-Outdoor-Photography/dp/0393338088/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303228689&sr=8-1"]Galen Rowell's, Inner Game of Outdoor Photography [/ame] and there's a chapter where he discusses the importance of the dark shadows, sillouettes, and underexposed areas. In this chapter he suggests that dark areas trigger a primal emotion in us all. He very plainly expresses that dark shadows trigger a sence of mystery in a viewer, and that without them an image lacks depth.
Some are probably wondering what this has to do with HDR? Well ,in a chapter on shadows he expressed a curiosity for the future and suggests that if we come to a point where have the technology to ‘fix a shadow’ too much, images will lose that sense of depth that dark shadows provide. You can see this with many HDR shots and upon reflection, I have to agree with the statement. In looking at images that I find provocative, almost all of them have areas of dark shadows. Case in point, one of my favorite photographers
Ebru Sidar's exceptional work. Look at how she uses shadow in her images to stir emotion. You don't get that with 'poorly' executed HDR. Most HDR looks like something designed by Mickey Mouse.
I have a whole slew of filters that I use individually from time to time, but just because I have them doesn't mean I want to use them on every image. HDR, I feel, requires the same level of respect for impact and approach. Just because I can, doesn't mean I should. With that said, I'm still interested in HDR but at this point careful blends in PS appears to be the only effective process that works for my intents.
